At 15:16 21/10/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
>Motivations are:
>- uniform framework
>- addresses TBL's desire that XML is not built-in at the lowest level to RDF
>- provides argument why lang tags are part of literal
>- gives an example of a non-XSD type system that Brian is prepared to
>defend.
I'm sorry, I'm maybe being contradictory on this. This proposal means that
either:
1) A datatyped literal denotes a value, in which case RDF datatypes map a
pair (lex, lang) to a value which is contrary to the xsd datatyping model
2) A datatype literal denotes a pair (val, lang) and then we have
(speaking loosely) French integers being different from English integers, i.e.
<jenny> <age> "10"-"fr"-<http://...#decimal> .
<johnny> <age> "10"-"en"-<http://...#decimal> .
does not entail
<jenny> <age> _:l .
<johnny> <age> _:l .
I really don't want to go anywhere near 2.
No one wants to declare the existing Nokia data illegal, but I currently
see a choice between:
o following the xsd datatyping model (except we play a little fast and
loose on the legacy)
o or blessing the current Nokia data
I suggest that if we choose the latter, we are in for heavy last call
comments. I doubt that the schema datatypes decision that lang was not a
factor in the mapping was taken lightly.
Brian